Posts Tagged ‘Afghanistan’
And so it begins….a local station just aired an entire report making excuses for the bomber because he’s “young” and “misguided.” Claimed that it’s his age that’s the problem. Claimed that his motive is “unknown.” Totally ignored the fact that the pedophile butcher that he worships as a prophet encouraged his followers to follow his violent example. I’m SO sick of the media in this country bending over backwards to give violent radical Islamists a pass!
On Rush Limbaugh’s Friday program, fill-in host Mark Steyn reminded listeners of Limbaugh’s Tuesday comments predicting the media would “circle the wagons” for Islam if it turned out that the suspects in Monday’s Boston Marathon bombing Muslims, saying that the prediction will come true.
As it turned out, the suspects Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were indeed Muslims, and Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” said the media wagon-circling would begin “any moment now.”
“As we now know, these guys are Muslim,” Steyn said. “One of them was Muslim. He’s dead — he died in the early hours this morning. The other guy, still on the lam, is Muslim — Muslims from Chechnya. And so, as usual, any moment now we’ll start to hear, ‘Oh well, these are just lone wolves,’ as Rush said. ‘They’re not typical of anything.’ None of these guys are ever typical of anything.”
“Why would Chechen refugees, who’ve been locked for nearly two decades in a bitter, violent conflict against the Russian government, harbor such anger against the United States that they’d want to carry out a terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon?” Politico asks.
“The answer is far from obvious,” it concludes.
Those few lines sum up the whole problem with our war on terror. A Muslim terrorist attack by Muslim terrorists? Why? The political establishment has spent decades choosing to ignore the basic facts. Then each time it’s baffled when the obvious happens.
The motives are obvious enough.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s YouTube channel had a playlist titled “Islam” and another playlist titled “Terrorists”. That should be obvious enough even for Politico.
This disconnect between our alleged bad behavior and the motives of the jihadists is starkly obvious in the case of the Boston terrorists. If Chechen Muslims have a beef with anyone, it’s the Russians. When jihadist terrorism became a problem in Chechnya, there were no “hearts and minds” campaigns, no solicitous outreach, no infusions of foreign aid, no apologies for past sins, no careful adherence to the laws of war, the Geneva conventions, or human rights, no courting of imams to provide insights into the wonderfulness of Islam. The Russians employed torture, assassination, group reprisals, and in the end ringed Grozny with artillery and left it in ruins. In the two Chechen wars the Russians killed around 150,000 people. In fact, Russia has been killing Muslims since the 18th century, and occupied Muslims lands in Central Asia for 80 years under the Soviet Union. So tell me, Senator Rand Paul or Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, if our foreign policy misbehavior explains jihadist hatred, how is that two centuries of Russian violence against Muslims is ignored, and all our blood and treasure spent to liberate and help Muslims count for nothing?
No more convincing are the other rationalizations for Muslim violence. Lack of education and economic opportunity exist all over the world, but African Christians and animists, or Indian Hindus and Buddhists don’t commit acts of terrorism with anywhere near the same frequency as Muslims. Plenty of people across the globe live under oppressive dictators who routinely violate human rights, and they don’t turn to terrorism against distant strangers in response. Tibetans aren’t donning suicide vests or bombing marathons. Millions and millions of impoverished everywhere don’t kill innocent people in random attacks in countries far from their homes. Every excuse for Muslim violence collapses beneath the weight of such facts. Meanwhile, the one factor all these killers––rich or poor, educated or not, politically oppressed or otherwise––have in common, Islam, is preemptively rejected as the explanation for the violence.
This “willful blindness,” as Andy McCarthy calls, has become dangerous. It reflects the arrogance of secular materialism, which has discounted religion as a mere life-style choice, usually benign––unless you’re talking about gun-toting, racist, misogynist, homophobic evangelical Christians, or racist, land-grabbing Zionist Jews. No, it’s about psychological trauma caused by globalization, or Islamophobia, or insensitive insults to Mohammed, or Israel’s oppression of Palestinians, or anything and everything other than the numerous passages in the Koran, hadiths, and 14 centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and theology, which clearly and consistently set out the doctrine of violent jihad against infidels.
So expect in the coming weeks the same old commentary about foreign-policy blowback, or two-bit psychological analyses of personal trauma, or Israel’s sins and Bush’s wars, or American intolerance and xenophobia, or our need to “reach out” and “engage” and “respect” and “understand” the fanatics who don’t want our outreach, tolerance, or respect, but our deaths. In short, expect more public reasons for the jihadists to believe we are weak and corrupt and thus deserving to die.
Three years after declaring that the war on terror is over, Obama is discovering that the terrorists apparently never got his memo.
The day after the bombing attack at the Boston Marathon, investigators discovered that the bombs were made from pressure cookers:
Pressure cookers – possibly activated remotely by a cellphone – are believed to have been used to make the crude bombs that sent deadly shrapnel hurling into a crowd of onlookers and competitors at Monday’s Boston Marathon, experts told Fox News.
Doctors treating some of the 176 injured victims believe the explosives were packed with deadly shrapnel, including pellets, nails and sharp metallic objects – with some patients having “40 or more” such fragments embedded in their bodies.
Pressure cookers, it turns out, are a favorite IED component used by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East, and Al Qaeda provided the instructions for making a pressure cooker bomb in their latest magazine. CNN claimed that it’s a “right wing signature,” but the facts show otherwise.
The deadly bomb attack on the Boston Marathon highlights what may be a growing threat to American cities — the use of IEDs to target large gatherings, inflicting mass damage with a device that is difficult to detect.
Security experts say the use of IEDs is becoming a preferred tool of terror in both domestic and global attacks — or attempted attacks — against the United States.
“The reason to use an IED or multiple IEDs is that you’re trying to create an oversized impact, and as much panic and disruption as possible,” Bill Braniff, the executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, told FoxNews.com Tuesday.
Despite these threats, Andrew McCarthy observes that our anti-terror efforts in the US are being hampered by political correctness:
The prosecutor who put the terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center attack behind bars says the kind of counter-terrorism needed to stop horrors like the Boston bombings is now “a dirty word’’ because of fears of profiling and racism.
“We have made the study of the ideology of our enemies basically verboten,’’ Andrew McCarthy told Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show.’’
“If you don’t understand what motivates the enemy there’s no way that you can anticipate what the enemy is likely to do next and protect yourself from it.
“Islamist organizations in the U.S. have made it much more difficult to do the kind of counter-terrorism that we’ve done since 9/11 that is based on intelligence.’’
Meanwhile, Democrats are busy blaming the Boston attack on….the sequester. No joke. See Rep. Hoyer and Rep. Becerra. Barney Frank is using it to argue for Big Government spending. They’re so classy, these people…exploiting a tragedy for political gain.
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on a 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
How … symbolic?
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
Don’t you feel safe, now?
Why is our military imposing the intolerant demands of Secular Humanism on our troops? How is it any different than Sharia law, which seeks to suppress all religious expression at odds with its own ideology?
Religious liberty advocates are denouncing the U.S. military’s order to remove a steeple and dismantle Christian crosses from an Army chapel in Afghanistan.
“We can confirm that those items were removed from the chapel,” said a spokesman for the ISAF Joint Command. “These items were removed out of respect for the beliefs of other faiths.”
The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that cross-shaped windows on the chapel were boarded up – until they can be replaced with non-offensive doors. Click here to read our original story.
The chapel, located at Forward Operation Base Orgun-E, became the subject of controversy after an atheist soldier complained and the president of American Atheists sent a letter to the Pentagon.
“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.”
A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.”
[...] Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way.
“I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.”
Boykin said he fears that the attacks on the Christian faith of soldiers could destroy the morale and the readiness of the military.
“In the long term, the greatest casualty of the conflict in Afghanistan is probably going to be the First Amendment rights of the American soldiers and the faith upon which America was founded,” he said. “I’m very concerned what the administration is doing to the military on a number of fronts. This is another indicator of how we are trying to impose a liberal agenda upon the people that are protecting the very rights of all Americans to be able to worship freely.”
Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Counsel, wondered why Christian soldiers must hide who they are.
“Why are we ashamed of one of the major reasons our Nation is the most generous and self-sacrificing for the benefit of others that the world has ever known – our inherently Christian benevolence,” he told Fox News. “We have freed the oppressed, fed the hungry, and restored nations throughout the world without anything in particular to show for it other than the satisfaction of making the world better than we found it for the sake of goodness and doing the right thing. Why should we hide a major motivation that compels Americans to do this?”
Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, told Fox News he was extremely disappointed to hear the news.
“I’m so concerned that the military is caving in to an organization that does not understand the First Amendment,” Crews said. “Christians have every right to exercise their faith in the military.”
If these Atheists were as tolerant and “respectful of other faiths” as they claim, they wouldn’t have a problem with a Christian chapel being designated with a cross symbol.
My first reaction to the news that the ban on women in combat was being lifted was that the standards should be equal – for soldiers, for firemen, for any occupation where lives are at stake. If a female soldier isn’t strong enough to carry all the required gear or a fellow wounded comrade, she doesn’t belong anywhere where that weakness could be the difference between life and death – for herself or others. As long as those criteria are met, I thought, no problem.
But the more I study the issue, the more I believe that women who want to serve in combat positions should be relegated to an all-female unit, or not at all.
Arnold Ahlert warns that “Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat“:
Ground combat is arguably the most physically grueling activity in which one can be engaged, and despite what the feminists would like Americans to believe about equality, science says otherwise: men have almost twice the upper-body strength as women.This is a critically relevant consideration. According to a 2009 article in National Defense Magazine, a soldier on a three-day mission in Afghanistan carries approximately 130 pounds of gear, and efforts to lighten that load have not succeeded. This is primarily due to the reality that the essentials of food, water, and ammunition cannot be replaced with lighter items. Other equipment, such as sensors, tripods, cold weather clothing, boots, sleeping bags, flashlights, and protective eyewear, have all been made lighter. But the fact remains that the average soldier is expected to carry enormous amounts of weight, simply to better ensure his chances for survival. Furthermore, a soldier must carry that weight even during periods of intense fighting. The overwhelming majority of women are not capable of meeting such standards.
What is the Pentagon likely to do? In New York City, when most female applicants to the Fire Department were unable to meet the strength requirements, feminists filed a successful lawsuit, altering the standards so that a number of otherwise unqualified women could pass the test. Thus it is likely the Pentagon will pursue a similar strategy of “gender-norming” for the entire service that is already part of the Army Physical Fitness Test. That test requires proficiency in push-ups, sit-ups and a two-mile run. For sit-ups both genders have the same requirements. For push-ups and the run, the grading scale for women is easier.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, illuminates the folly of pursuing such double standards. “Revised ‘warrior training’ programs sound impressive, but gender-normed standards emasculate the concept by assuring ‘success’ for average female trainees,” she wrote in 2005, when the Army began a surreptitious program of putting women in smaller, direct ground-combat units. Donnelly then added the critically proper perspective to the mix. “Soldiers know that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield,” she explains.
There is also nothing that will eliminate the natural differences between men and women that play out in a number of other ways. Few things are more important for enduring the rigors of combat than morale and combat unit cohesion. It is ludicrous to believe that mixed units will be immune to the potentially de-stabilizing effects of sexual attraction. And as night follows day, sexual attraction leads to pregnancy. In 2009, Major General Anthony Cucolo, running military operations in Northern Iraq, was forced to deal with the serious downside of that reality. As a result, he initiated a policy under which troops who got pregnant–and the men who got them pregnant–faced a court martial and possible jail time. Cucolo issued the directive because he was losing too many women with critical skills. “I’ve got a mission to do, I’m given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them,” he contended.
Yet consensual sex is only part of the problem. A military report released in January 2012 revealed a stunning 64 percent increase in violent sex crimes within the U.S. Army since 2006. The most frequent sex crimes for 2011 included “rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy.” The report further noted that while only 14 percent of the Army is comprised of women, they represent 95 percent of all sex crime victims.
It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.
A former marine points out how disastrous it would have been if women had been included among the combat forces for the Iraq invasion:
I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.
The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.
Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face
[...] When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.
[...] Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.
Israel is the only nation in the world that drafts women to mandatory military service, but even they have some harsh lessons for those who insist that women belong on the front lines:
“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.
“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”
Already, Gen Dempsey is talking about lowering the physical requirements for combat if women are not strong enough to meet them. How many needless deaths will be caused by allowing weaker soldiers onto the front lines, where they cannot carry the gear required or wounded companions? Political Correctness at this level can cost lives!
This is the same guy who in 2010 called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam.”
He’s also responsible for the White House leaks of secret information about the Osama Bin Laden raid to Hollywood producers, which put the lives of Navy Seals in jeopardy.
The man is a traitor who belongs in jail, not at the helm of our most important intelligence agency!
Just when you thought that Chuck Hagel was as bad as it was going to get, wait until you meet John Brennan. America, meet your new CIA Director.
Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization’s longstanding terrorist support.
During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administration’s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of “political, economic and social forces,” said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced “Al-Quds” instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as “not that bad” when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.
During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as “a holy struggle” and “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”
And Brennan has had a great track record so far. A truly spectacular track record which makes him unambiguously qualified to replace Petraeus.
[A] known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennan’s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.
Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.
Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.
Can you imagine a directive coming down for our soldiers not to criticize the enemy and their atrocities during WWII?
Talk about undercutting morale! If they’re not evil and don’t have evil intentions, why are we even at war against them?? Taliban terrorists and their actions are NOT morally equivalent to our troops, and our soldiers shouldn’t be forced to pretend otherwise!
Here is a strong indicator that the Obama Administration’s crusade to appease Islam has gone too far; a new U.S. military handbook for troops deployed to the Middle East orders soldiers not to make derogatory comments about the Taliban or criticize pedophilia, among other outrageous things.
It gets better; the new manual, which is around 75 pages, suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture— not Taliban infiltration—is responsible for the increase in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
The soon-to-be-released Army handbook is still being drafted, but a mainstream newspaper got a sneak preview and published an article that should infuriate the American taxpayers funding the never-ending war on terror. The manual is being created because someone with authority bought the theory that cultural insensitivity is driving insider attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
More than three dozen insider attacks have killed 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year, according to the article, and some blame “American cultural ignorance.” The bottom line is that troops may experience social-cultural shock and/or discomfort when interacting with Afghan security forces, the new military handbook says. “Better situational awareness/understanding of Afghan culture will help better prepare [troops] to more effectively partner and to avoid cultural conflict that can lead toward green-on-blue violence.”
The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”
Set to air on the National Geographic Channel two days before the Presidential election, “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” is billed as the “real inside story behind the manhunt and raid that took down al-Qaeda’s notorious leader, told through the eyes of the military and intelligence teams involved.”
But rather than focusing on the heroes who carried out the mission, President Obama now takes center stage in the film, with voice-overs, still photographs and archival footage being added after “SEAL Team Six” was purchased in May for a reported $2.5 million by Harvey Weinstein, a big supporter of the President.
Not only that, Meghan O’Hara – a producer for Obama supporter Michael Moore’s films “Fahrenheit 9/11,” “Sicko” and “Bowling for Columbine” – was the one hired to gather that extra footage.
A report in the New York Times said the new footage serves to “strengthen Mr. Obama’s role and provide a window into decision-making in the White House,” a move the report says will “bolster claims that the 90-minute film amounts to a political stunt.”
Indeed FrontPageMag.com called it an “Obama Infomercial From Michael Moore’s Favorite Producer” which they say is essentially “about the man that sat on his ass while they (SEAL Team Six) risked their lives.”
The additional material will definitely not include footage of President Obama speaking at a $35,000 per person fundraiser this summer at the Connecticut home of the movie’s producer, Harvey Weinstein.
But all may not be rosy on the propaganda front. A group of veterans opposed to Obama are buying ad time during the movie to run anti-obama commercials:
A group of ex-soldiers are buying TV ads attacking President Barack Obama that will run during the first showing of a pro-Obama movie created by his Hollywood backers.
The group, dubbed OPSEC, is buying the anti-Obama ads on local cable systems in swing-state cities like Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Denver, Las Vegas, Charlotte, Raleigh, Cincinnati and Richmond.
“There is nothing acceptable about playing politics with national security and American lives,” says Scott Taylor, former Navy SEAL and president of OPSEC, in an voice-over on the ad. “Aren’t some things more important than politics?”
That just makes me smile.
Obama is more than welcome to haul his “sensitive” behind to the front lines and see how hospitable of a welcome he’d get from these terrorists.
Our troops deserve better than being insulted and betrayed by this sorry pretender of a “commander-in-chief”!
Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.
How has the Pentagon responded?
By blaming our troops.
Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.
If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview.
[...] Military officials who have done tours in Afghanistan are outraged that brass would even suggest US troops are partly to blame for their own murders.
“I would like to see a public affairs officer explain to the press where showing the bottom of your shoe to a Muslim or shaking with your left hand was legitimate grounds for murder,” growled one US Army official.
They say their Muslim partners would still resent them even if they followed their Islamic protocols to the letter.
“The cultural affronts excuse is a bunch of garbage,” a senior US Army intelligence official told me. “The Afghans that know we’re doing all this PC cultural sensitivity crap are laughing their asses off at our stupidity.”
Explained the intelligence official: “They’re killing us because we’re ‘infidels’ occupying Islamic lands. It’s what the Koran and every imam over there is telling them, and no amount of cultural sensitivity is going to stop that or change the fact that we’re ‘infidels.’ ”
What’s next? Blaming rape victims for “provoking” their attackers?
A moving tribute by Col. Tom Manion, USMCR (Ret.), who lost his son in Iraq:
I served in the military for 30 years. But it was impossible to fully understand the sacrifices of our troops and their families until April 29, 2007, the day my son, First Lt. Travis Manion, was killed in Iraq.
Travis was just 26 years old when an enemy sniper’s bullet pierced his heart after he had just helped save two wounded comrades. Even though our family knew the risks of Travis fighting on the violent streets of Fallujah, being notified of his death on a warm Sunday afternoon in Doylestown, Pa., was the worst moment of our lives.
While my son’s life was relatively short, I spend every day marveling at his courage and wisdom. Before his second and final combat deployment, Travis said he wanted to go back to Iraq in order to spare a less-experienced Marine from going in his place. His words—”If not me, then who . . . “—continue to inspire me.
My son is one of thousands to die in combat since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Because of their sacrifices, as well as the heroism of previous generations, Memorial Day 2012 should have tremendous importance to our entire nation, with an impact stretching far beyond one day on the calendar.
[...] When my son died in Iraq, his U.S. Naval Academy roommate, Brendan Looney, was in the middle of BUD/S (basic underwater demolition) training to become a Navy SEAL. Devastated by his good friend’s death, Brendan called us in anguish, telling my wife and me that losing Travis was too much for him to handle during the grueling training regimen.
Lt. Brendan Looney overcame his grief to become “Honor Man” of his SEAL class, and he served in Iraq before later deploying to Afghanistan. On Sept. 21, 2010, after completing 58 combat missions, Brendan died with eight fellow warriors when their helicopter crashed in Zabul province. He was 29. Brendan and Travis now rest side-by-side in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery.
“The friendship between First Lt. Travis Manion and Lt. Brendan Looney reflects the meaning of Memorial Day: brotherhood, sacrifice, love of country,” President Obama said at Arlington on Memorial Day 2011. “And it is my fervent prayer that we may honor the memory of the fallen by living out those ideals every day of our lives, in the military and beyond.”
But the essence of our country, which makes me even prouder than the president’s speech, is the way our nation’s military families continue to serve. Even after more than a decade of war, these remarkable men and women are still stepping forward.
As the father of a fallen Marine, I hope Americans will treat this Memorial Day as more than a time for pools to open, for barbecues or for a holiday from work. It should be a solemn day to remember heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice, and also a stark reminder that our country is still at war.
For the Rozanskis, Snyders, Douvilles, Looneys and thousands more like us, every day is Memorial Day. If the rest of the nation joins us to renew the spirit of patriotism, service and sacrifice, perhaps America can reunite, on this day of reverence, around the men and women who risk their lives to defend it.
Message to anyone, anywhere who is thinking about providing crucial intelligence to America in the war on terror: Obama considers his re-election more important than your safety or America’s national security, and he is more than willing to out you for his own benefit.
The Obama administration did not do enough to protect the Pakistani doctor who led the CIA to Osama bin Laden’s hideout, allowing Pakistan to send him to prison for 33 years for treason, says GOP Rep. Peter King.
King said that the administration gave away the doctor’s name and discussed the DNA samples he collected to verify it was bin Laden living in the compound in Abbottabad.
“This has been handled very poorly right from the time of the raid,” King told FoxNews.com.
King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is the latest voice to express outrage that Pakistan convicted Dr. Shakil Afridi to 33 years in prison for treason. Afridi ran a fake vaccination program for the CIA and was able to collect the DNA required to determine it was bin Laden living in the compound the CIA raided in May of last year, killing the al-Qaida leader.
Pakistan has since expressed outrage over the secret raid, and has repeatedly said the doctor committed a treacherous act by helping the American government locate the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
King, a Republican from New York, said that Obama’s team should not have spoken about the doctor and his program, effectively giving away his identity.
“They put him out there,” said King adding that he is unaware of any efforts the administration made to get the physician out of Pakistan. “I’m focused on that they disclosed his identity.”
Afridi was sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state — in a trial that was conducted under a draconian tribal justice system in Pakistan’s storied tribal belt, although his alleged crimes against the state did not happen in that region of Pakistan.
The handling of the case has infuriated U.S. officials —whose relationship with Pakistan has been strained for months over the raid and other matters — because it was conducted under the aracane Frontier Crimes Regulation, which was imposed when Pakistan was under British rule. He was tried without a judge, and an employee of the local government oversaw the case. The law allows that employee to declare guilt or innocence and even impose sanctions on members of the defendant’s tribe.
Afridi did not get a lawyer but was given a chance to defend himself. He can appeal the verdict.
I don’t even want to guess how many people will lose their life – or already have – because the Narcissist-in-Chief can’t resist the temptation to politicize classified information when it makes him look good for re-election.
The Obama administration arranged for two Hollywood filmmakers to get special access to government officials involved in the commando operation that killed Osama bin Laden, according to a conservative legal group that posted internal government documents on its website Tuesday.
Judicial Watch posted what it said were 153 pages of Pentagon documents and 113 pages of CIA documents about the film project. The group said it had obtained the documents through a lawsuit it filed under the Freedom of Information Act, which can be used to force government agencies to release some undisclosed information.
Among the disclosures were that the filmmakers had access to top White House officials, were given the identity of a SEAL team member involved in the raid and taken to the top-secret “vault” where the raid was planned.
The group said the documents lay out contacts between White House, CIA and Pentagon officials and Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal, the director and screenwriter of “The Hurt Locker,” a 2008 film about the Iraq war that won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
The film project, titled “Zero Dark Thirty” about the May 2011 raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, became a focus of controversy last year when a New York Times columnist reported that its producers planned to release it weeks before the Nov. 6 election in which President Barack Obama is seeking re-election. That has been pushed back to December.
Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon disputed the authenticity of the documents. A spokesman for the National Security Council said the White House would have no comment on the documents beyond those issued last August by presidential press secretary Jay Carney, who said the White House had not given the filmmakers classified information.
Politico reports on a July 2011 meeting between Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Mike Vickers and the film makers in which he told them that leaders of the Special Operations Command couldn’t speak to them for appearances’ sake, but that they would make available a Navy SEAL who was involved in planning the raid from its earliest stages. According to Politico, that meeting occurred just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA warned against the dangers of leaked information about the raid. On top of that, Judicial Watch reports on an email exchange in which top officials expressed their desire to “shape the story” and have the filmmakers use “White House talking points,” including calling the raid a “gutsy decision” and that “WH involvement was critical.”
Not to be missed is the political angle. A June 9, 2011, email reveals that the White House was aware the movie was set for a fourth-quarter release date — coinciding with the president’s re-election bid — and that the meeting between the filmmakers and the DOD / CIA was arranged by The Glover Park Group, a Democratic-leaning advocacy firm headed up by a former adviser to Al Gore’s 2000 campaign. And then there’s the fact that Sony Pictures Entertainment, which owns the production house distributing the film, hosted a fundraiser for President Obama on its lot last month, part of a West Coast fundraising tour that raise the campaign more than $4 million.
Though we do not know for certain the full extent of the information revealed, we do know that this is not the first time that the Obama Administration’s handling of classified information has been called into question. Earlier this month, former CIA officials blamed the Obama Administration for leaking details on Britain’s involvement in a covert mission that resulted in the foiling of an underwear bomb plot. The Guardian reported that the leak followed a series of disclosures beginning with a report on an expansion of CIA drone attacks in Yemen, followed by the president’s surprise trip to Afghanistan on the anniversary of the bin Laden mission. Mike Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, said of the leak, “MI6 should be as angry as hell. This is something that the prime minister should raise with the president… This is really tragic. Any information disclosed is too much information. This does seem to be a tawdry political thing.”
Obama Didn’t Consult Military Commanders On Afghanistan Withdrawal, Scheduled Retreat To Boost Reelection Campaign
To Obama, the American military is serving on his behalf rather than to defend America, and so the lives of America’s brave men and women in uniform can be put at risk and used as pawns for political expediency…and that’s exactly what he’s doing.
I still think the surge was the right thing to do because it arrested the Taliban’s momentum in southern Afghanistan and at least gives breathing room for the development of Afghan National Security Forces. But in retrospect, it is obvious that the president’s critics were more right than wrong. For evidence look no further than this excerpt from New York Times reporter David Sanger’s new book, which, as Jonathan discussed yesterday, appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. It quotes an unnamed Obama adviser as follows: “The military was ‘all in,’ as they say, and Obama wasn’t.”
Then Sanger writes that “by early 2011, Mr. Obama had seen enough. He told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exist from Afghanistan.” The critical decisions about drawing down troops—with 32,000 departing by the end of September 2012—were apparently made by political aides in the White House without consulting General Petraeus in Afghanistan or other generals or, until the very end, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton.
This is breathtaking. Commanders on the ground and senior officials at the Department of Defense are not always right, and their recommendations do not always have to be followed by a president. But the commander-in-chief at least has an obligation to solicit their views and take them into careful consideration. Apparently Obama didn’t do that because he wanted to avoid the leaks that attended his previous decision-making process on Afghanistan in the fall of 2009. So he decided to end the surge in September 2012, which Sanger erroneously describes as “after the summer fighting season” (the fighting season actually lasts until late October or early November) and accurately describes as “before the election.” Meaning, of course, our presidential election.
This confirms the worst suspicions of Obama’s critics—namely that he was never committed to victory in Afghanistan and was instead committed to bringing troops home early so as to position himself advantageously for his own reelection. These revelations raise serious questions in my mind about the morality of the entire surge—about the morality of risking troops’ lives and limbs for a goal that is not worthy of their sacrifice.
H/T Weasel Zippers
President Obama has spent the last three years trying to figure out how to turn over Afghanistan to the Taliban without taking the political heat for it. In the process, the Obama Administration has committed a betrayal of our troops so stunning that anything done to them in or after Vietnam pales in comparison.
While the Taliban kills our troops and innocent bystanders in Afghanistan, the Obama Administration is fighting to give them the one thing they can’t seem to win on the battle field: control over the whole country.
It is no accident that despite the deployment of 33,000 troops under Obama, the Taliban in Afghanistan has thrived and grown, as documented by a recent Congressional report released earlier this week. This has happened while the Pakistani Taliban and insurgent groups have been assassinated or bombed into relative submission by our drones next door in Pakistan.
Why haven’t we been as successful, or as aggressive, in Afghanistan? Evidence is mounting daily that the Obama Administration has not only held back in Afghanistan, but has deliberately undermined the war effort there.
A stunning Washington Post piece on Sunday documented how we’ve been secretly releasing captured combatants from Afghan jails to placate the Taliban and other insurgent groups and entice them to negotiate with us. Administration officials wouldn’t say if these terrorist thugs went on to murder our troops, probably because they have.
Why are we so interested in kissing up to these thugs? Obama ultimately intends for the Taliban to rule Afghanistan again, a development that could destabilize the whole region.
It is part of an administration policy called “legitimate Islamism,” and conservatives need to wake up and understand what it means. Basically, as explained by an Obama surrogate in the National Journal recently, Obama is seeking to put radical Islamists in power in country after country on the theory that if they have a “legitimate” government to run, they won’t join Al Qaida and attack us.
So far, Obama has succeeded in overthrowing or destabilizing secular forces everywhere his administration has meddled except Afghanistan. From Libya to Egypt to Yemen, the Obama administration has turned its back on or actively removed leaders who — whether we like them or not — have kept radical Islamists in check. In their place, administration officials have nurtured the radical Muslim Brotherhood and other like-minded groups. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are the administration’s radical Islamic overlords of choice.